Supreme Court GVRs and Lower-Court Reactions

REFERENCES

• Armbruster, J.M. (1998). “Deciding Not to Decide: The Supreme Court's Expanding Use of the ‘GVR’ Power Continued in Thomas v. American Home Products, Inc. and Department of the Interior v. South Dakota,” 76 North Carolina Law Review 1387.
   Google Scholar
• Benesh, S.C. (2008). “GVRs and Their Aftermath in the Seventh Circuit and Beyond,” 32 Southern Illinois Law Journal 659.
   Google Scholar
• ——— (2002a). “The Hierarchy of Justice and Nonpublication.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
   Google Scholar
• ——— (2002b). The U.S. Court of Appeals and the Law of Confessions: Perspectives on the Hierarchy of Justice. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• ——— (2001). “The Hierarchy of Justice and Nonpublication,” 11:3 Law and Courts 5.
   Google Scholar
• Benesh, S.C., and M. Reddick (2001). “Overruled: An Event History Analysis of Lower Court Reaction to Supreme Court Alterations of Precedent,” 64 Journal of Politics 534.
   Google Scholar
• Berch, M.A. (2004). “The Impact of Remand Orders from Higher to Lower Courts on American Jurisprudence,” 36 Arizona State Law Journal 493.
   Google Scholar
• Bowie, J.B., and D.R. Songer (2009). “Assessing the Applicability of Strategic Theory to Explain Decision Making on the Courts of Appeals,” 62 Political Research Quarterly 393.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruhl, A.-A. P. (2009). “The Supreme Court's Controversial GVRs—And an Alternative,” 107 Michigan Law Review 711.
   Google Scholar
• Chemerinsky, E., and N. Miltenberg (2004). “The Need to Clarify the Meaning of U.S. Supreme Court Remands: The Lessons of Punitive Damages’ Cases,” 36 Arizona State Law Journal 513.
   Google Scholar
• Early, S.T. (1977). Constitutional Courts of the United States: The Formal and Informal Relationships Between the District Courts, the Courts of Appeals, and the Supreme Court of the U.S. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams and Company.
   Google Scholar
• Hellman, A.D. (1984). “‘Granted, Vacated, and Remanded’—Shedding Light on a Dark Corner of Supreme Court Practice,” 67 Judicature 389.
   Google Scholar
• ——— (1983a). “The Supreme Court's Second Thoughts: Remands for Reconsideration and Denials of Review in Cases Held for Plenary Decisions,” 11 Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 5.
   Google Scholar
• ——— (1983b). “Error Correction, Lawmaking, and the Supreme Court's Exercise of Discretionary Review,” 44 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 795.
   Google Scholar
• Hofer, R.E. (2010). “Supreme Court Reversal Rates: Evaluating the Federal Courts of Appeals,” 2:3 Landslide 1.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, C.A. (1987). “Law, Politics, and Judicial Decision Making: Lower Federal Court Uses of Supreme Court Decisions,” 21 Law and Society Review 325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klein, D.E., and R.J. Hume (2003). “Fear of Reversal as an Explanation of Lower Court Compliance,” 37 Law and Society Review 579.
   Google Scholar
• Ku, S. (2008). “The Supreme Court's GVR Power: Drawing a Line Between Deference and Control,” 102 Northwestern Law Review 383.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, S.P. (2004). “Gaming the GVR,” 36 Arizona State Law Journal 551.
   Google Scholar
• Pacelle, R.L. , Jr., and L. Baum (1992). “Supreme Court Authority in the Judiciary: A Study of Remands,” 20 American Politics Quarterly 169.
   Google Scholar
• Perry, H.W. (1991). Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Revesz, R.L., and P.S. Karlan (1988). “Nonmajority Rules and the Supreme Court,” 136 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1067.
   Google Scholar
• Robertson, D.W., and M.F. Sturley (2006). “Recent Developments in Admiralty and Maritime Law at the National Level and in the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits,” 30 Tulane Maritime Law Journal 195.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, H.A. (1997). Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations, 4th ed. New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Songer, D.R., J.A. Segal, and C.M. Cameron (1994). “The Hierarchy of Justice: Testing a Principal-Agent Model of Supreme Court-Circuit Court Interaction,” 38 American Journal of Political Science 673.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Songer, D.R., and R.S. Sheehan (1990). “Supreme Court Impact on Compliance and Outcomes: Miranda and New York Times in the United States Courts of Appeals,” 43 Western Political Quarterly 297.
   Google Scholar
• Songer, D.R., R.S. Sheehan, and S.B. Haire (2000). Continuity and Change on the United States Courts of Appeals. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Spaeth, H.J. (2004). “Relisting: An Unexamined Feature of Supreme Court Decision Making,” 25 Justice System Journal 143.
   Google Scholar
• Spriggs, J.F. III, and T.G. Hansford (2000). “Measuring Legal Change: The Reliability and Validity of Shepard's Citations,” 53 Political Research Quarterly 327.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stern, R.L., E. Gressman, S.M. Shapiro, and K.S. Geller (1993). Supreme Court Practice, 7th ed. Washington, DC: Bureau of National Affairs.
   Google Scholar
• Tarr, G.A. (1977). Judicial Impact and State Supreme Courts. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
   Google Scholar
• Vladeck, D.C. (2005). “Keeping Score: The Utility of Empirical Measurements in Judicial Selection,” 32 Florida State University Law Review 1415.
   Google Scholar